Matthew Yglesias – What Price Density
The solution, as Ryan Avent says, is to build denser communities. We ought to build more transit infrastructure, of course, but it’s cheaper to use what we already have more intensively. And, of course, it’s more practical to build new infrastructure if there’s a reasonable expectation that it will serve intensive development. Beyond that, density also serves to make walking and biking more practical for more trips. And best of all, getting denser could be accomplished mostly through growth-enhancing relaxation of regulatory burdens.
And of course if the supply of housing in central cities and nearby suburbs were radically higher, then it would be much easier for people to afford to live in them. Instead, restrictions on the supply of conveniently located housing lead to high prices and the “drive until you qualify” phenomenon that’s currently leaving many Americans in deep trouble as they try to pay for fuel.
In general, relaxing density restrictions will ease housing prices. But, a couple notes:
Creating more socialized infrastructure, whether transit or roads, disperses development. High densities create demand for transit, not the other way around. Transit creates demand to locate near the stations, but not elsewhere. This is because as commuters are diverted from roads, congestion subsides, allowing drivers to commute from further-out places. So, if density is the goal, I would privatize highways & parking, while putting the breaks on construction of new public highways & parking prior to building new expensive transit. If individual commuters were to pay for their use of the roads, many would alter their habits and perhaps where they choose to commute to / from. The change in location preference will, no-doubt, increase density.
Building densely has higher construction costs per unit as land costs are dispersed among more units, so density doesn’t necessarily equal affordability for those who live densely. However, building higher density where there is high demand releases pent up demand to gentrify less desirable areas. Overall affordability improves for a city as a result of allowing the market to provide additional supply.
Here is my comment that I left on Mr. Yglesias’ blog:
Note the use of the word “we”, which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias’ personal tastes.
Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the “poor”, that “we” should impose his “solutions” on them and on everyone else.
Setting aside the issue that “poor” people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities — there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.
Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?
Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they’re not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as “solutions”.
The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.
Government really is the problem.
Here is my comment that I left on Mr. Yglesias’ blog:
Note the use of the word “we”, which is apparently a euphemism for Mr. Yglesias’ personal tastes.
Because he likes the ides of other people commuting by foot/bike, he arrogantly decides, as spokesman for the “poor”, that “we” should impose his “solutions” on them and on everyone else.
Setting aside the issue that “poor” people (to the extent that they exist at all in metropolitan areas) are not in the exurbs, but are instead in the ring surrounding the central cities — there is a lack of regard for the preferences of people who have to make location decisions for themselves.
Some people enjoy lots of neighbors, public transit, and being within walking distance of shopping. Other people prefer fewer neighbors, less noise, and fewer cockroaches. Who is anyone to decide what these things are worth other than those who have to live there?
Reliance on the government to sort things out has resulted in a mess. America is littered with abandoned central cities crawling with vagrants and criminals, congested roads, dangerous transit systems (when they’re not on strike), and millions of people making distorted housing decisions based on monopoly school districts, rent regulations, insane real estate taxes, politically determined zoning codes, and much else that the planners, thinkers, and other experts have offered as “solutions”.
The solution, Mr. Yglesias, is to decide for yourself where and how you wish to live, and let others do the same.
Government really is the problem.
looks like you accidentally posted it 3 times on that site. Oh, well…
looks like you accidentally posted it 3 times on that site. Oh, well…
Well, I clicked “post” and everything froze for about three minutes, so I reloaded, did not see my post, so I hit “post” again. And again.
Sorry for making free-market people look like idiots…
Well, I clicked “post” and everything froze for about three minutes, so I reloaded, did not see my post, so I hit “post” again. And again.
Sorry for making free-market people look like idiots…
I almost did the same thing.
I almost did the same thing.